"The dating technique is based on the fact that carbon is found in various forms, including the main stable isotope (12 C) and an unstable isotope (14 C) in all organic matter. Through photosynthesis, plants absorb both forms from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it contains a ratio of 14 C to 12 C, but, as the 14 C decays with no possibility of replenishment, the ratio decreases at a regular rate. This rate is known as the half-life of 14 C. The measurement of 14 C decay provides an indication of the age of any carbon-based material (a raw radiocarbon age).[5] However, over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14 C to 12 C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow for the fine-tuning, or calibration, of the indications derived from measuring the carbon ratio. A raw radiocarbon age, once calibrated, yields a calendar date."

So, originally i thought carbon dating was based on the radioactive decay of an individual atom, and taken collectively they all had this same rate of decay. That is after 5730 years, the atom will lose half its radioactivity, double the time, 3/4 of its radioactivity. Which i found an issue with and which interpretation i pulled out of my butt. What is meant by radio active decay, is merely the changing of C14 into any other atom by emitting some of its components. However from this wikipedia article i found out that it is based on the collective dissapearance of these carbon 14 isotopes, whose number halves in the precise length of time of 5,730 years. Which i also find very odd but makes more sense... sort of. So based on this we have 1 million carbon 14 in a fragment of organic tissue, and after the half life period of 5730 years, 500 000 will radiate ionizing particles, the other half won't, more or less. Why wouldnt all of their nuclei emit around the same time, is it that since we have a mass of these isotopes, the whole mass some how regulates the radioactive decay of each individual isotope composing the whole mass? Is it that at the half life period, they have a 50-50 chance of being transormed? The latter is not, according to their illustrative animation. So it seems that there is a range of years in which they can decay, a large range too, but somehow that half the number decayse in the period of 5730 years more or less. Then half the half will decay in the next half life period. Yet in that mass of million a number could decay by 1000 years, a greater cumulative number by 2000 years and so forth. Which indicates that this technique seems to be based on probability. So as said, that in this principle of radioactive decay in the context of carbon dating, the total mass of these isotopes, i believe, is a key factor. Yet wikipedia doesnt seem to really touch on this. Nor, if i remember correctly, my high school and post high school education. Though i was absent minded in my former years. Anyone with me here?

Is it that if we have 6 freefloating carbon 14's, (if they dont exist, than we can hypothesize theroretically,) that 3 will dissapear in the 5730 (in any one of the years leading up to that period) 1 or 2 within the next period, 0 or 1 or 2 up to the next deadline? The freefloating carbon 14 scenario, i havent seen touched either.

I dont see what connection they make with atmospheric C14. Nor is it said why radioactive decay occurs, in the Radioactive decay article it is said it is spontaneous.

"Decay of Organic Matter

This means that almost all living organisms are constantly exchanging carbon-14 atoms with their environment. This exchange stops when the organism dies. Nevertheless, release of CO2 from the organism continues, by processes of molecular decay (disintegration). These processes, however, do not change the fraction of C-14 relative to the other two species of carbon (C-12 and C-13) in decaying organic matter."

Interesting. Well when a human or animal dies for instance, the flesh relatively quickly evaporates as do all other tissue except bones. As ive been lead to believe. So all the carbon 14 within those tissues dissipates or is exchanged with the environment.. As in one couldnt test the flesh of animal unless its preserved, and generally only bones could be carbon dated. Im assuming the ratio of carbon 14 to other species of carbon would be different in different kinds of tissue within an organism. As they are different tissues and must have different molecular structures. So judging by wikipedias statement, i am lead to believe that the amount of C14 is the same through out all the different tissues.

Anyway, i think this would be a good topic to touch upon, loosely grasp and crack open the skull with. At least my own, but hopefully help a few others to tweak their head engines in the process, if anyone else needs it.

Admins: To my knowledge this doesnt violate the rules of the forum unless wiki is considered a commercial or advertising link. I had the actual URLs but removed them, just in case. I can do the proper Harvard or whatever referencing if need be. Well that is i can repost them in this thread, (since i dont think i can edit a post after a period, i will try though, if its necessary), otherwise i will post the proper referencing lines in here, and if you can paste them underneath the referenced paragraphs, would be appreciated. The reason i dont do that referencing now, is because that would include actual URLs.

Last edited by DeadAwake on Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:38 am; edited 1 time in total

Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:36 pm

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21737

Re: I dont get Carbon Dating.

DeadAwake wrote: Admins: To my knowledge this doesnt violate the rules of the forum unless wiki is considered a commercial or advertising link. I had the actual URLs but removed them.

heh. Those rules only apply to the million rappers and their music links. I thought that was obvious but if I need to rephrase the rules section to make it clearer let me know. Please include the URLs for this.

Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:03 pm

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

Organic material acquires Carbon-14 through processes like respiration, digestion, etc. from the environment. Once it dies it no longer acquires any new Carbon-14. Carbon-14 is unstable and eventually decays into Nitrogen-14 (and a beta particle). It is unknown exactly when each molecule will decay, however, the pattern in which a *group* will decay is very predictable, but not exact. The amount of Carbon-14 atoms (that have not decayed into Nitrogen-14 + beta particle) is halved every ~5730 years. The Carbon-13 and Carbon-12 atoms never decay. So by taking the percentage of Carbon-14 atoms that still exist in the dead material, and doing a bit of calculus, you can determine the approximate age.

From my experience, the religious ones are the freakiest.
At least their daughters were

Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:22 am

DeadAwake

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 596
Location: Aus.

jakethesnake' wrote: It is unknown exactly when each molecule will decay, however, the pattern in which a *group* will decay is very predictable, but not exact. The amount of Carbon-14 atoms (that have not decayed into Nitrogen-14 + beta particle) is halved every ~5730 years. The Carbon-13 and Carbon-12 atoms never decay. So by taking the percentage of Carbon-14 atoms that still exist in the dead material, and doing a bit of calculus, you can determine the approximate age.

We dont know when one atom will decay, yet we know when 1/2 trillion out of a trillion will decay... approximately. This is the odd part im talking about.
Because theoretically all the c14 atoms could win the lottery of death in 1000 years, though improbable. I guess its just that scientific knowledge doesnt know why these particle die, not that there is no reason behind it. But yeah, these things can decay at any moment..

By pattern you mean the quantity, right?I found out that wiki mentions the C14 in the atmosphere because the amount of carbon in an organism varies based on the amount in the atmos. I still dont see it saying anywhere if the c14 in an organism varies throughout different tissues or not,because by what ive read the assumption is inherent that its uniform throughout. More importantly, does anyone know how the halflife of c14 discovered in the first place? Also for example, would in 1/5 of the 5.7k year 10% roughly have decayed, or is the randomness somehow better countered by the 50% period? Because, im guessing 50% is used for conveniences sake.

Im guessing i will have to stalk down a physicist to answer these worthy conundrunms.

Plum Puddin' wrote: What's this thread about?

Its a cleverly designed ruse to prove how sex is behind everything people do.

Plum Puddin' wrote: Do you not believe it is accurate or are you saying you just don't get it?

I know its not accurate. Its a probable estimation. Also i think its more i dont get how it has its level of accuracy. Now that i know it is, contrary to what i said, based on the probability that 50% c14 isotopes decay in an organism within 5730 years +/- 40 years, which is compared to c12 and or c13 whose ratio is 1: a trillion. And if not that then i just dont get it.

Plum Puddin' wrote: I don't get quantum astrophysics.

Well, I reccommend a good dose of psilocybic mushrooms...

Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:14 pm

Plum Puddin'

Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1849
Location: Earf.

The only thing i'm thinking on shrooms.

Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:49 pm

GrantherBirdlyD&D addict

Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 3145

Re: I dont get Carbon Dating.

DeadAwake wrote: Why wouldnt all of their nuclei emit around the same time, is it that since we have a mass of these isotopes, the whole mass some how regulates the radioactive decay of each individual isotope composing the whole mass? Is it that at the half life period, they have a 50-50 chance of being transormed? The latter is not, according to their illustrative animation. So it seems that there is a range of years in which they can decay, a large range too, but somehow that half the number decayse in the period of 5730 years more or less. Then half the half will decay in the next half life period. Yet in that mass of million a number could decay by 1000 years, a greater cumulative number by 2000 years and so forth. Which indicates that this technique seems to be based on probability.

You seem to leap to the conclusion that carbon-dating is based on probability without any supporting evidence. Can you lay out that chain of reasoning for me one more time?

Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:02 pm

DeadAwake

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 596
Location: Aus.

They (C14) can decay at any time, spontaneously, well, that is without known reason. 50% decay more or less in 5.7k years. Right?

As in you have something which dissapears, fairly unpredictably, yet within a fixed period of time a given percentage is found to, more or less to remain and dissapear. So that in the given mass a certain percentage dissapears. That time frame is based on an average, therefore it is not certain, but probable.

Carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of organic materials.

Wikipedia, 24 June 2013, Wikipedia

Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:13 pm

Jump to:

Goto page 1, 2Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:30 pm